Plaintiffs Domingo Imperial and Sixto Brillantes were, on and before June 2, 1957, Chairman and Member, respectively, of the Commission on Elections. Plaintiff Sixto Brillantes is still a Member of said Commission. On June 2, 1957, defendant Jose L. Guevara, a newspaper reporter employed by the defendant Manila Times Publishing Company, wrote an article with the following caption: "BALLOT BOX CONTRACTS HIT, Solons firms assail poll commission’s irregular action." "Political quarters were rocked last night with reports of venalities in connection with the awarding by the commission on elections of contract to manufacture 34,000 ballot boxes." The above article was concluded with the comment "Chairman Domingo Imperial and Commissioner Sixto Brillantes approved all the proceedings with Member Gaudencio Garcia consistently dissenting."cralaw virtua1aw library

The above write-up was followed by an Editorial of defendant company on June 5, 1957, commenting on the same topic. On the same date also, in a column entitled "Business of the Times", there appeared, "BALLOT BOXES" — "People would like to know from the electoral commission why it ordered the manufacture of ballot boxes by negotiated sale instead of the usual public bidding."

Considering the above news items as libelous, plaintiffs on August 22, 1957, instituted an action against the defendants before the CFI of Rizal, Quezon City Branch IV, asking P200,000 each as moral damages, and P50,000, by way of exemplary damages and costs. After the defendants have presented their Answer and after trial, the lower court rendered judgment, the dispositive portion of which reads —

"WHEREFORE, defendants are hereby ordered to pay jointly and severally the amount of P10,000.00 to each of the two plaintiffs as moral damages and P5,000.00 to each of the plaintiffs as exemplary damages with legal interest from the date of filing of this complaint until the said sum shall have been fully paid. Costs of suit are hereby adjudged against defendants."cralaw virtua1aw library

Defendants brought the case directly to this Court on two alleged errors committed by the trial court, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) In finding that the publications in question are libelous;

(2) In declaring that the defendants were guilty of negligence and in finding them civilly liable.

The plaintiffs did not appeal.

Without going into the merits of the causes of action of the plaintiffs, and the defenses advanced by the defendants, We find that the defendants, We find that the appeal has been erroneously directed to this Court. It will be noted that the amount involved in the appealed judgment is only P15,000.00 for each of the plaintiffs, far below the amount upon which this Court may acquire appellate jurisdiction. For another thing, the character of the allegedly libelous articles, the question as to whether or not the defendants were negligent, and whether or not the plaintiffs are entitled to the damages and for what amount are issues of fact falling under the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals (Sections 17 [5], [6], and 29, Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended).

CONFORMABLY WITH THE FOREGOING, the Clerk of Court is hereby ordered to remand the case to the Court of Appeals, for proper action.

Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.

Bengzon, C.J., took no part.